1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 4,413,200 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from September 14, 2018 to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

(a) Business authorization and public notice - C Business (hereinafter “instant Project”) - Gangwon-do public notice D- Project implementer on December 31, 2015: Defendant

B. The Gangwon-do Local Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on March 17, 2017 (hereinafter “instant expropriation”) - Subject to expropriation: The Gangwon-do Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on March 17, 2017 (hereinafter “instant adjudication of expropriation”): 6 weeks of Gangwon-gun Ewyang-gun and night trees owned by the Plaintiff, 20 weeks of pine trees, 10 weeks of pine trees (hereinafter “instant land and obstacles”): 9,780, 400 won: the date of commencement of expropriation: April 17, 2017.

On July 20, 2017, the Central Land Expropriation Committee filed an objection with the Central Land Expropriation Committee. However, the Central Land Expropriation Committee rendered a ruling dismissing an objection on July 20, 2017. D.

Results of the appraiser F’s appraisal (hereinafter “court appraisal”) - Contents of appraisal: 104,193,600 won for the appraisal of the instant land and obstacles (i.e., the land of this case at KRW 102,189,600 for the obstacles of this case at KRW 2,004,00 for the obstacles of this case) / Each entry in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the results of the appraiser F’s appraisal, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that compensation for losses was made by the expropriation ruling of this case is unfair because the price of the land and obstacles in this case considerably falls short of the market price. As such, the Defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 20 million and delay damages.

B. 1) In a lawsuit on the increase or decrease of compensation for expropriation, in case where both the result of the adjudication and the result of the court appraisal are not unlawful in the evaluation methods, and there is no evidence to prove that there was any special error in the evaluation contents, the trust of any one of the above evaluation results belongs to the discretion of the fact-finding court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu14779, Jun. 29, 1993). 2) According to the above recognition and the evidence revealed earlier, the adjudication on expropriation of this case on the instant land and obstacles and the court appraisal, respectively.